The myth of a $150 dollar computer

For $150 Dollars, third world laptop stirs a big debate - IHT

I’ve been reading about this thing for a while – it’s a computer designed for use in ‘third world’ countries, and people from MIT (and now Rupert Murdoch) seem to think promoting it serves some philanthropic goal, though no one seems to know what that is exactly. With quotes like

"It's as if people spent all of their attention focusing on Columbus's boat and not on where he was going," [Nicholas Negroponte, instigator] said in an interview. "You have to remember that what this is about is education."

And

"The soldiers inside this Trojan horse are children with laptops," said Walter Bender, a computer researcher

I’m not sure why anyone really thinks this is a good idea.

First, in terms of goals. No one seems to know what people would actually do with a computer, except… learn how to use other computers. Remember, media is the message (have we still not figured this out? Seriously, remember McLuhan, it’s been 40 years, can we get past the idea that media is value neutral?), and considering that this project isn’t linked to any broader political/economic goals, the only educational development computers bring is computers. There’s no new content, only a medium that will develop a limited skill set and influence delivery towards a model of education that prioritizes technological prowess.

What educational good does this bring?

Does it create a more sustainable world? (no, it makes communities more dependant on a tenuous network of high tech high energy info networks for the sake of economic competition, ultimately a development paradigm which is killing everyone through ever increasing consumption) Who does it benefit? (Probably very few in the ‘recipient’ countries, considering the sources of production as well as a history of scientific ‘brain drain’ to larger wealthier countries) What kinds of wealth does it create? (kinds dependant on investment schemes by development banks and an export economy)

That gets to a second problem, which is the supposed philanthropy. This seems more like a Trojan horse of profits for technology companies posing as philanthropy. The company producing the machines, Quanta, is the second largest laptop producer in the world, and will turn a profit. Along with that immediate benefit, they get a brand new market to potentially sell to for an indefinite future. This gives something people don’t need for the sake of turning a profit. This is a poisoned gift meant to secure the interests of a narrow portion of the world. This seems particularly evident in the structure of the donation, which does not provide the means to produce these computers, only the computers themselves. A genuine act would allow them to begin producing on their own, instead of using mass importation of new machines.

Neither of these things really gets at some basic questions: how will they be paid for? Is this a donation or another ‘aid’ loan like those that continue to wreck third world economies? Where do the resources to produce the computers come from? Computer production is resource intensive: it takes 10 gallons of water to produce one chip. What impact does producing 5 million computers with hundreds of chips each have? The perverse structure of the ‘donation’ also comes up in the production techniques, which require resource extraction in the form of minerals and oil from the countries to which the machines will be donated.

The costs to people everywhere belies the myth of the '$150 computer.'

Duncan